CHILD Sintesi della relazione

D7b: side test procedure proposal (TUB)

The results of the comparative testing of different test procedures show that the original CHILD procedure is not sensible as the dummy readings are quite low and there are almost no possibilities to differentiate between different qualities of seats. The comparison of the both modified CHILD procedures (high-g and high-g and fixed door) shows that the simulated intrusion has almost no influence on the dummy readings in the non worst-case configuration therefore it seems to be unfair to use a test procedure with intrusion, when it does not influence the results significantly.

The fixed door derivate of the CHILD procedure and the modified NPACS procedures seem to be the best choice based on the test results mentioned above. Both represent an adequate severity level and allow distinguishing between different seats. The main advantage of the fixed door procedure is the simple set-up, which promises high reproducibility. However, based on the experience from the NPACS project, where the ADAC test procedure (fixed door procedure but in an angle of 80°) was compare with car and hinged door tests, it is reasonable to expect a completely different situation when testing RF CRS.

The NPACS protocol is currently subject to ISO standardisation. During this process it is very likely that the intrusion velocity will be reduced compared to the NPACS settings. With respect to harmonisation it is reasonable to propose a side impact test procedure, which is already in use. As the CHILD proposal is meant to form, as base for legislation and NPACS is a consumer test, there are good reasons to reduce the severity level compared to NPACS.

For these reasons the modified TUB/NPACS procedure with reduced angular velocity was selected as the CHILD side impact test procedure.